Multicriteria decision analysis for the evaluation of water quality improvement and ecosystem service provision

Abstract

Water and land management decisions require consideration of multiple factors. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) provides a structured, auditable and transparent tool that helps inform and add rigour to multioption decisions. MCDA was used in a payment for ecosystem services (PES) project to evaluate options for delivering good ecological status in Tortworth Brook, Gloucestershire, UK. Following a process of stakeholder engagement, final options considered were: (1) doing nothing; (2) modifying existing sewage treatment works; (3) a single integrated constructed wetland (ICW) targeting multiple ecosystem service outcomes; and (4) catchment wide multiple ICWs. The analysis concluded that the ‘do nothing’ option and modifying the existing works are both likely to provide poor utility and value for money. Both ICW options offered the greatest utility in terms of optimising the benefits to all stakeholders.

Can an Integrated Constructed Wetland in Norfolk Reduce Nutrient Concentrations and Promote In Situ Bird Species Richness?

“…Evidence in this paper and previous studies suggest that appropriately sized and designed ICWs can have a role in this regard (Doody et al 2009;Dong et al 2011;McInnes et al 2016). Whilst ICWs are cost-effective in terms of both the initial capital spend and ongoing maintenance in comparison to the alternatives for water quality improvement, it would be a mistake to consider that ongoing maintenance will not be required (Carty et al 2008;McInnes et al 2016). The adoption of ICWs should be undertaken in concert with careful monitoring not only to enable optimisation of design and maintenance for nutrient removal, but also to assess the dynamics of less commonly measured substances such as microplastics, pesticides and endocrine disruptors.…”

“…There is considerable interest within the UK in the wider-scale adoption of ICWs as a method for reducing nutrient concentrations from STW effluents, with P generally the main target, but with interest also extending to the multiple benefits that such natural infrastructure interventions can provide to society. Evidence in this paper and previous studies suggest that appropriately sized and designed ICWs can have a role in this regard (Doody et al 2009;Dong et al 2011;McInnes et al 2016). Whilst ICWs are cost-effective in terms of both the initial capital spend and ongoing maintenance in comparison to the alternatives for water quality improvement, it would be a mistake to consider that ongoing maintenance will not be required (Carty et al 2008;McInnes et al 2016).…”

“…In addition to enhancing biodiversity, ICWs also have the potential to deliver on range of ecosystem services which underpin the well-being of local stakeholders (Harrington and McInnes 2009). Evidence from the UK indicates that when the full range of benefits are embedded in the decision-making process and considered against traditional approaches to the management of P in wastewater, an ICW provides greatest utility and value for money (McInnes et al 2016).…”

Surface runoff and accelerated erosion in a peri-urban wellhead area in southeastern Brazil

“…The methodology was developed based on a multicriteria analysis using map algebra in a GIS environment. According to McInnes et al (2016), an analysis of multicriteria decisions provides a structured, auditable and transparent process that helps to inform and add rigor to multiple decisions.…”

Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services (RAWES): An example from Colombo, Sri Lanka

“…Under some circumstances, the ability to simply recognize value may be sufficient to highlight important ecosystem services; monetary valuation may be unnecessary, or even counterproductive, if it is seen as contrary to cultural norms or fails to reflect a plurality of social values (Defra, 2007, TEEB 2010. Furthermore, the under-recognition of wetland ecosystem services undermines biodiversity conservation arguments, weakens the case for protection or restoration, and ultimately impacts on human well-being (McInnes 2013a).The recognition of benefits sensu TEEB (2010) can be achieved through field observation, re-assembling expert and indigenous knowledge, processing published information and/or through dialogue with relevant stakeholders (Wattage and Mardle, 2005;McInnes et al 2016a). Such a qualitative or relative assessment approach has been explicitly advocated to demonstrate the value of wetland ecosystems (Russi et al 2013).…”